Judge Juan Merchan decided on Monday that the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity should not reverse Donald Trump’s felony conviction in the New York hush money case.
One of Trump’s attorneys’ several attempts to reverse his May guilty conviction on 34 counts of falsifying company documents was denied by Merchan’s ruling. The judge did not, however, rule on Trump’s attorney’s motion to have the conviction overturned since he was elected president.
His 41-page ruling instead focused on the question of presidential immunity.
Despite the Supreme Court’s decision that Trump should have broad immunity for his official activities while in office, Merchan claimed that the evidence from the Manhattan district attorney’s office had nothing to do with Trump’s official activity as president.
The judge decided that since the evidence Trump’s attorneys disputed was solely connected to unofficial behavior, immunity should not apply to it.
“This Court concludes that, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, any error that may have occurred in the introduction of the challenged evidence was harmless,” he stated.
Even if this Court determined that the contested evidence was official under the Trump decision—which it does not—it would nevertheless reject the defendant’s request. This is because there was no mistake in the way the matter was handled, and the introduction of the contested material was a minor error.
Trump transition spokesperson Steven Cheung claims that Merchan’s decision is a clear breach of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling and other established legal precedents.
Merchan’s ruling is one of several possible dismissal motions that could drag out the case for months or perhaps years, and Trump’s attorneys are certain to challenge it.
Merchan has yet to rule on Trump’s allegation that the case was dismissed because his presidency served as a legal barrier to additional criminal proceedings.
Trump was found guilty in May, but he has not yet been sentenced. Although prosecutors agree that the president-elect will not be sentenced while in office, the district attorney’s office has argued in court documents that the felony conviction should stand.
Prosecutors contended that overturning the jury’s verdict would be an unwarranted drastic measure, even though they might postpone or alter the sentence.
A jury in May convicted Trump on 34 charges of fabricating financial records to pay back his former attorney Michael Cohen for a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels to silence her regarding a purported affair prior to the 2016 election. The affair has been denied by Donald Trump.
Trump’s sentence in July was twice delayed until after the election due to the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity.
Because the prosecution used evidence from Trump’s official conduct in the White House, Trump’s attorneys believe the Supreme Court’s decision should overturn the verdict.
In his ruling, Merchan denied that assertion, claiming that the material they disputed had nothing to do with Trump’s official presidential actions.
Merchan’s ruling described a number of statements made by Cohen and White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout that Trump’s attorneys said should not have been allowed to be heard at trial because of the immunity ruling.
Merchan argues that it is acceptable and logical to assume that if the act of fabricating documents to conceal payments from the public is undoubtedly an unofficial act, then the communications used to promote that same cover-up should also be unofficial.
In a letter to the lawyers on Monday, Merchan said that although Trump’s defense team had accused jurors of wrongdoing earlier this month, the team had not yet submitted a motion to have the verdict overturned.
According to the judge, Trump’s attorneys must correctly file their motion if they want him to take action.
Merchan gave the lawyers instructions to redact the details of the purported problem before releasing them.
Any claims of misbehavior by the jury should be carefully investigated. Merchan wrote, however, that this Court is not permitted to decide such allegations based only on conjecture and hearsay.
The public filing of unsworn and admittedly contested statements is prohibited by this Court. In addition to violating the established Order Regulating the Disclosure of Juror Information, doing so would put the jurors’ safety in jeopardy.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!
Eliot Pierce is a dedicated writer for ChiefsFocus.com, covering local crime and finance news. With a keen eye for detail and a passion for storytelling, Eliot aims to provide his readers with clear and insightful analysis, helping them navigate the complexities of their financial lives while staying informed about important local events. His commitment to delivering accurate and engaging content makes him a valuable resource for the community.